If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

We have to pay him either way so do you want to pay him for one year or three years?

what? That isn't what the dude is saying... he is saying fcuk nash... he isn't in the long term plans so lets bring someone else in and see what they can do...

jesus Christ this **** is simple ... why do people make it so hard.

Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.

We have to pay him either way so do you want to pay him for one year or three years?

I want him to retire

He doesn't want to retire and the Lakers can't force him. So the options are keep him and pay him. Waive him and pay him. Waive him and stretch pay him. no matter what we are stuck paying him. Personally I'm not a fan of paying guys to go home and do nothing. If you're gonna pay him might as well make him earn some of his money. I don't care if he only plays 5 games I want to see him working his *** off rehabbing because he's already stolen enough money from the lakers he doesn't deserve any more of a free ride.

Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.

jesus dude... the guy is not talking about the money... everyone knows we have to pay him his money unless he takes a buyout...

what he is saying is we need to MOVE ON from him and quit wasting our time talking about him as someone who will play next... even if he CAN play next year there is no point in playing him as all it will do is keep other PG's from getting playing time

Yet, in your next post after this you think even if he only plays 5 games that isn't a bad thing...

The Lakers need to move on from the Steve Nash distraction because that is all he is at this point...

Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.

jesus dude... the guy is not talking about the money... everyone knows we have to pay him his money unless he takes a buyout...

what he is saying is we need to MOVE ON from him and quit wasting our time talking about him as someone who will play next... even if he CAN play next year there is no point in playing him as all it will do is keep other PG's from getting playing time

Yet, in your next post after this you think even if he only plays 5 games that isn't a bad thing...

The Lakers need to move on from the Steve Nash distraction because that is all he is at this point...

What they should do is keep him on the team and not play him. Put him on the end of the bench as the 4th string PG. Only play him in garbage time. Make him practice. Make him travel with the team. Don't just let him go home and see his kids and count his money. Make him work! He owes us at least that. If you really want to **** Nash over this would be the best way. But we all know DAntoni would never do that.

Whoa don't overreact or anything. He didn't really specify what he meant. Waive him but don't stretch the contract? I would be fine with that. Nobody seems to mention that as a realistic scenario. And why is Nash the only player that the stretch clause is ever talked about being used on? Lots of guys have been waived this year. No mention of the stretch clause for any of them.

jesus dude... the guy is not talking about the money... everyone knows we have to pay him his money unless he takes a buyout...

what he is saying is we need to MOVE ON from him and quit wasting our time talking about him as someone who will play next... even if he CAN play next year there is no point in playing him as all it will do is keep other PG's from getting playing time

Yet, in your next post after this you think even if he only plays 5 games that isn't a bad thing...

The Lakers need to move on from the Steve Nash distraction because that is all he is at this point...

He doesn't want to retire and the Lakers can't force him. So the options are keep him and pay him. Waive him and pay him. Waive him and stretch pay him. no matter what we are stuck paying him. Personally I'm not a fan of paying guys to go home and do nothing. If you're gonna pay him might as well make him earn some of his money. I don't care if he only plays 5 games I want to see him working his *** off rehabbing because he's already stolen enough money from the lakers he doesn't deserve any more of a free ride.